Cross-Breeding?

[Kent67]

Wow, this one sure got long. I've only scanned pages 5 and 6. Guess I have to go back and read the rest, too. LOL


Quick thought: What about the $300 "pure" locale panthers from top name breeders that are sired by CBB males that don't actually look anything like their wild counterparts? Are we paying for quality, "purity", or both?

 

[sandrachameleon]

Regarding proving out females, most breeders continue to breed a new WC female before the first clutch hatches and is raised to mature colorations, possibly resulting in multiple clutches of locale hybrids. Most breeders do not keep the entire first clutch from every new female until they are 6-9 months old to verify the female. The large breeders have too many breeders to do that for every one of their females. They typically only keep a couple holdback males, if that. Fortunately, in most cases they were very careful about the females they added and there is not a problem. I have seen animals from top breeders turn out to be hybrids after they were sold, however.

This, in my opinion, does not a reputable responsible breeder make. If you are selling an animal as pure (regardless of who you are) you should be darn sure that's what it is.

Chris, you're almost proving there really are no "pures" in captivity. (Which is why I always put it in quotes)
edit:
Once the horse leaves the barn, why worry about whether the door is closed? Luckily, we're just breeding for pets, not to restock the wilderness. So really it doesnt matter if the genetics are 100% pure.

 

[sandrachameleon]

Quick thought: What about the $300 "pure" locale panthers from top name breeders that are sired by CBB males that don't actually look anything like their wild counterparts? Are we paying for quality, "purity", or both?

Presumably, you're buying for a particular colour potential.

 

[warpdrive]

Sandra,

Sadly, I'll be willing to bet that most breeders don't do things as properly as they should when it comes to keeping things pure.
Some will in fact breed new proven lines into their projects and some will take chances and hope.
That's why I feel the whole purest movement is silly.
Like what was also mentioned, its not like we are trying to keep them in a natural state of color and health when breeding...no, the breeders are breeding for color and size.
In otherwords for the lay person, the pures we have today in captivity are nothing like the wild animals even in looks.

A real purest would not only breed in my way of thought, but also breed for the best eaters and drinkers, the most hardy, the ones who would adapt the most.
Not just for color and size.
They would cull a lot of the weaker or less addaptable ones like nature would, and so much more.

No, the purists just have an ideal in their head and would prefer everyone to follow.
Th thing is, even they have a reality to deal with when it comes to breeding panthers...
No matter what, crosses are here and will be with us all the time...and they won't threaten the pure lines from the purest.

Harry

 

[Chris Anderson]

Chris, you're almost proving there really are no "pures" in captivity. (Which is why I always put it in quotes)

I don't think that is what I've proved at all actually. If anything I think I've shown not that there really are no pure locales in captivity but that its easy for mistakes to happen and thus its important to educate yourself and use caution with any purchase you make if you are seeking a pure locale.

Once the horse leaves the barn, why worry about the whether the door is closed? Luckily, we're just breeding for pets, not to restock the wilderness. So really it doesnt matter if the genetics are 100% pure.

Unfortunately I feel this is a very short sighted and self serving mentality. Just because the likelihood of ever using captive panther chameleons to repopulation the wild is slim at best does not mean that their natural state is not of value in captivity. Just as hybrid locales have their place with those that seek only a pet with cool colors, pure localities serve many purposes themselves, including providing a window to the natural expression of beauty and diversity these animals are famous for in a setting where more people will be able to appreciate them. If there wasn't that silly purest movement, we'd eventually end up with a giant group or panther chameleons that all looked the same, kind of like dog mutts. Its only a matter of time before exports/imports are further restricted and if efforts are not continued to maintain pure lines, its only a matter of time before we lose any semblance of variation in captivity.

That's why I feel the whole purest movement is silly.
Like what was also mentioned, its not like we are trying to keep them in a natural state of color and health when breeding...no, the breeders are breeding for color and size.
In otherwords for the lay person, the pures we have today in captivity are nothing like the wild animals even in looks.

A real purest would not only breed in my way of thought, but also breed for the best eaters and drinkers, the most hardy, the ones who would adapt the most.
Not just for color and size.
They would cull a lot of the weaker or less addaptable ones like nature would, and so much more.

No, the purists just have an ideal in their head and would prefer everyone to follow.

I don't disagree with your thoughts on the importance of breeding for the most hardy individuals, however, from a biological standpoint, the largest, brightest colored animals are often the most healthy as large size and investment in flashy colors are often honest signals of strength and health. Its the same principles behind sexual selection that occurs normally in nature (breed with the biggest most colorful male because he is the most likely to pass on strong genes to my offspring). By selecting those individuals for breeding in captivity, I would argue breeders could be unknowingly selecting for the healthiest animals. With regard to culling of weak offspring or at least not putting them back into breeding effort, I would agree that is something that is not done enough and people should avoid perpetuating those weaker traits by not putting these weaker offspring into breeding situations.

No matter what, crosses are here and will be with us all the time...and they won't threaten the pure lines from the purest.

I agree that crosses are here to stay, if for no other reason than the ease by which producing them can occur, even unintentional. I do not agree, however, that they do not threaten pure lines in the long run. You've only been working with chams for a year. You've not seen the regulations change and the tightened restrictions that have occurred over the last 20 years. The restrictions are not getting any more relaxed and if serious efforts to maintain pure lines do not continue, there is a very real possibility that the available diversity we have in captivity will diminish and we will be left with a giant population of mutts that largely look quite similar and definitely not like any natural locale. To me, that is a shame.

Chris

 

[RPCV]

The reality is - 100% confidence that a locale is "pure" does not exist and will not be possible until a distinctive feature is discovered that is objectively verifiable (i.e. genetic variation - even this is subject to some error albeit negligible).

What we are paying for by going to reputable breeders is an increased level of confidence that the locale we want to by is actually the locale we are getting. We are also likely paying for other traits that Warpdrive described as well as supporting those who breed in a humane way (we would hope).

While WC further increases confidence in the locale it still does not provide complete certainty.

The path forward, as mentioned by others, would be some form of registration/certification/accreditation program. What this would provide is even a higher level of confidence that the hobbyist could turn to that is one step above the confidence provided by selecting a reputable breeder.

The issue then becomes whether or not interest and economic forces are sufficient enough to make this happen. Having some sort of registration process could rest with in the certification of a specific line, registration of an importer, certification of a breeder or combination of these. In any case there would need to be some sort of developed criteria and ongoing auditing process. This takes time and money. If there are enough people out there who are willing to pay more for a higher level of confidence then those involved in getting the chams to the market may be willing to incur the costs to meat this demand.

This comes up over and over again in most scientific fields - simple fact; getting a moderate level of confidence (> about 75% is not that expensive or hard to do); increasing that level to about 95% takes a lot of money, time and effort and getting above 99% costs a small fortune. Ultimately this is what this discussion boils down to. Are people willing to spend the extra money for a 20-25% increase in certainty that they are getting a “pure” locale?

When the market forces and interest is there it will happen; until then we play the hand we are dealt. Those who want more certainty pay more to breeders/importers who can provide it. Taking it to the next level will need to start somewhere - my guess is some of the intelligent and passionate members on this forum would be the right people to get it there.

 

[Cainschams]

Just because the likelihood of ever using captive panther chameleons to repopulation the wild is slim at best does not mean that their natural state is not of value in captivity. Just as hybrid locales have their place with those that seek only a pet with cool colors, pure localities serve many purposes themselves, including providing a window to the natural expression of beauty and diversity these animals are famous for in a setting where more people will be able to appreciate them. If there wasn't that silly purest movement, we'd eventually end up with a giant group or panther chameleons that all looked the same, kind of like dog mutts. Its only a matter of time before exports/imports are further restricted and if efforts are not continued to maintain pure lines, its only a matter of time before we lose any semblance of variation in captivity.
Chris

Although my opinion really doesnt matter because I have no intentions of breeding panthers again, this is why I think its important to try and keep lines as "pure" as possible. I also feel I have only seen very few crosses that look nice. The natural locale type colors are much more appealing. But then again, who really cares what I think I like dirty, little, drab colored chameleons

 

[sandrachameleon]

I don't think that is what I've proved at all actually. If anything I think I've shown not that there really are no pure locales in captivity but that its easy for mistakes to happen and thus its important to educate yourself and use caution with any purchase you make if you are seeking a pure locale.

Almost, I said ALMOST LOL Im going to have to start adding a bunch of

Yes of course clearly it helps to educate oneself and be selective and cautious with purchasing if "pure" is important to you. And be willing to pay more (which is entirely fair).

 

[sandrachameleon]

....pure localities serve many purposes themselves,....If there wasn't that silly purest movement

Of course they are equally wonderful.
I have nothing against "pure" animals nor do I think there is a "silly purest movement". Please remember that most of my animals are "pure" and are valued, before you get to lecturing and name calling. There is nothing whatsoever self-serving in what I said, and I ask for an appology for your saying so.

Those who are breeding crosses are not breeding to repopulate the wild or to maintain "pure" lines - they have different motivations, which doesnt make them bad.
There is plenty of room for both cross locales and "pure" animals. I see nothing wrong with people wanting to try to maintain animals that as much as possible resemble wild animals. And i have nothing against anyone who wishes something different. (I keep and breed both "pure" and intentionally crossed animals)

What I DO take arguement with is those that suggest there is something wrong with cross breeding, as if only "pure" animals were worthwhile.

It seems highly unlike that the purity of the animals in the wild are effected by captive crosses. And any captive breeder with good standards can also maintain decent purity (unfortunately often still maintained /enhanced by wild imports).

Crosses may make it more expensive or more difficult to get "pure" animals, and that's fine too. That's the system we live with. Special or Difficult is worth more. Supply/demand. Certainly I have no issue with paying a premium if what I want is a "pure" animal.

The best way to protect the natural diversity of the chameleon species is to protect the natural environment, not try to replicate it in a captive environment. With the possible exception of certain large zoo/reasearch facilities, or where the natural habitat is beyond saving. This, Chris, is perhaps the place for your "serious efforts" could be made. Otherwise, the majority of us are simply pet owners.

You've only been working with chams for a year.

Well, Ive Been a chameleon keeper for well over a decade. Not that this is a relevant detail to this thread.

 

[sandrachameleon]

Sandra,
Sadly, I'll be willing to bet that most breeders don't do things as properly as they should when it comes to keeping things pure.

As in all things - buyer beware

 

[sandrachameleon]

The reality is - 100% confidence that a locale is "pure" does not exist and will not be possible until a distinctive feature is discovered that is objectively verifiable [...] What we are paying for by going to reputable breeders is an increased level of confidence [...]
While WC further increases confidence in the locale it still does not provide complete certainty.
[...]This comes up over and over again in most scientific fields - simple fact; getting a moderate level of confidence (> about 75% is not that expensive or hard to do); increasing that level to about 95% takes a lot of money, time and effort and getting above 99% costs a small fortune. Ultimately this is what this discussion boils down to. Are people willing to spend the extra money for a 20-25% increase in certainty that they are getting a “pure” locale?
[...]Taking it to the next level will need to start somewhere - my guess is some of the intelligent and passionate members on this forum would be the right people to get it there.

Good post! I so agree with you!